Anybody have a fresh argument...

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

on the KJVO issue?

95% of our threads are samo-samo.

Anything new for the "debate"?

 

[rsr]

I haven't heard the argument for a while that the KJV is correct because it was translated under a "king" as opposed to a "queen."

 

[Bro.Bill]

C4K I agree with you, most of this is rehashed over and over again. What is frustrating is many hard feelings are built up with very little fruit bearing.The KJV issue is very devisive.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

That sounds pretty simple, huh?

 

[Bro.Bill]

Yup

 

[Dr. Bob]

I am still scratching my head over fundamental baptists who hate EVERYTHING about the Anglican church and belief and religion and practice, yet have accepted the Anglican Version of the Bible as being the "only perfect" one.

This simply does not compute. Have we debated this incongruity?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Oh, and I just started a thread on "Can a KJVonly Go to HEaven".

Thought that would add some sweet spirit to the debate. They seem to think that those who hear the Gospel from MV or men like Wescott are in HELL because they didn't use the Anglican Version, so I'm beginning to wonder about THEIR salvation . . .

 

[Cix]

What about all the people in the world who don't read English? Are thier souls forever doomed to Hell because they can't read the true word of God?

 

[Ransom]

rsr said:

it was translated under a "king" as opposed to a "queen."

Even that's doubtful.

 

[HankD]

How about this one for the KJVO folks:

Since the AV1611 First Edition is printed with old Gothic Font, can a person be saved while reading the AV1769 printed with the Roman Font?


HankD

 

[Dr. Bob]

ROMAN Font? Like Rome as in Latin and Codex Vatincanus? Nothing good can come out of Rome!

Except maybe I John 5:7 or Rev 22 where there was not a Greek manuscript . .

 

[Trotter]

Yo, Roger, Bob,

Ain't ya'll learned nuthin' yet? Don't matter what you start out debatin', as soon as Meeshell or Azjo or Auntie-Alexander shows up, it all goes to pot anyways?

If only the KJVO's would come up with new material, instead of recycling the same old garbage...

Like they say, wish in one hand...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by HankD:
How about this one for the KJVO folks:

Since the AV1611 First Edition is printed with old Gothic Font, can a person be saved while reading the AV1769 printed with the Roman Font?

HankD

You may have something!

Remember when we used to sing this
in church?

Come thou Font of every Blessing
Tune my heart to sing Thy Grace
Streams of Mercy never ceasing
Call for Songs of loudest Praise.

 

[DeclareHim]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
I am still scratching my head over fundamental baptists who hate EVERYTHING about the Anglican church and belief and religion and practice, yet have accepted the Anglican Version of the Bible as being the "only perfect" one.

This simply does not compute. Have we debated this incongruity?

Amen

every KJVO I know believes the Anglican Church is evil but yet they use there translation. Also the KJV originally contained the Apocrypha which all KJVO I know reject as cannon yet they love their Bible.

 

[David J]

I wonder if we have any true AV1611KJVOist hangig around! Now a true AV1611KJVO might be fun to debate since the KJVOist form of Ex Cathreda could easily be applied to 1611! Now that would be a new spin for the KJVO Camp! Imagine a AV1611KJVO telling a 1762/1769KJVO to put away their perverted KJV's.

Just my thoughts...

 

[HankD]

I wonder if we have any true AV1611KJVOist hangig around! Now a true AV1611KJVO might be fun to debate since the KJVOist form of Ex Cathreda could easily be applied to 1611! Now that would be a new spin for the KJVO Camp! Imagine a AV1611KJVO telling a 1762/1769KJVO to put away their perverted KJV's.

It's already happened.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

HankD

 

[David J]

Where? I would love to read it!

 

[TomVols]

No, we're only getting the same old retreads, which makes me wonder (as I have my entire tenure on this Board) if this entire forum shouldn't be eliminated.

 

[HankD]

Where? I would love to read it!

I'll try to find it again.

It was a church with a website which said the the 1769 KJV Oxford Edition was the "resurrected" Word of God.

HankD

 

[michelle]

If I had to choose between the two:

resurrected = by the power and providence of God Almighty, who is the only one who is able to resurrect perfectly

or

reconstructed = by the power and providence of man who has no ability to bring something back to life perfectly


I would go with "resurrected" any day. However, I don't believe in either. I believe the faithful have always had God's perfect word, and will always have it, so there is no need for either of these. No need to resurrect or reconstruct something that was never dead, nor lost.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle